Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).

Although Tiltbillings explained that the following quote is not (entirely) true I want you to pretend it is for the sake of argument:

It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassnato the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."

I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.To thin the teaching out by presenting it as a "light" version will help none to reach the goal with it and damages the teaching of the Dhamma. One can not teach the Dhamma only partially and expect anyone to reap the full benefits. Even more so it can cultivate a perception that you don't need a lot of the non-secular "baggage" in the Dhamma and that it can be ignored without consequence while in reality the Dhamma exists in that form for a good reason. If people are, for example, only taught a single technique of watching the mind they can miss valuable parts that may seem very religious like prostration which in reality is a very good way to cultivate humility. The whole path is designed so that all parts reinforce each other.

In short I think that the Buddha would never have altered his teaching to appeal to a larger group of people. He recognized that it was not for everyone although anyone was welcome. I personally hope that a "light" version never becomes the norm for the reason I mentioned above. Let's put quality above quantity.

I realize I express some things strongly, however the above should be interpreted as a big IMHO. What do you think?

Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.

mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments

If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.

Ytrog wrote:Although Tiltbillings explained that the following quote is not (entirely) true I want you to pretend it is for the sake of argument:

It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassnato the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."

I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.To thin the teaching out by presenting it as a "light" version will help none to reach the goal with it and damages the teaching of the Dhamma. One can not teach the Dhamma only partially and expect anyone to reap the full benefits. Even more so it can cultivate a perception that you don't need a lot of the non-secular "baggage" in the Dhamma and that it can be ignored without consequence while in reality the Dhamma exists in that form for a good reason. If people are, for example, only taught a single technique of watching the mind they can miss valuable parts that may seem very religious like prostration which in reality is a very good way to cultivate humility. The whole path is designed so that all parts reinforce each other.

In short I think that the Buddha would never have altered his teaching to appeal to a larger group of people. He recognized that it was not for everyone although anyone was welcome. I personally hope that a "light" version never becomes the norm for the reason I mentioned above. Let's put quality above quantity.

I realize I express some things strongly, however the above should be interpreted as a big IMHO. What do you think?

I understand you point, but do understand mine: It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

danieLion wrote:Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).

danieLion wrote:Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).